Voting

When I was going through my mail this morning one of the messages had the following in it:

Voting is almost never a way to reach consensus. Rather, it acknowledges that consensus has not been reached and side-steps further constructive attempts to reach it. — Stefano Zacchiroli

Stefano is the Debian Project leader and the discussion was about the procedure for taking over the maintenance of a program that has been neglected by its current keeper, but that isn’t really important. What blew me away about the quote was the completely different viewpoint it had about voting. I had been headed that way ever since I read about the Condorcet method but Stefano’s statement crystallizes the problem and puts a little bow on it.

In the already demoralizing context of the current election this statement rings even more true. It makes you wonder whether the lack of voter turnout is a function of disinterest in our collective fate or the rejection of a system that is clearly driving us apart.

I was thinking about the oddity that the electorate is *so* evenly divided and has been consistently for a long time. That can’t be a coincidence. Rather, it’s like evolutionary pressure, because the system is being gamed systematically and scientifically. Like a duck’s bill – too long and it breaks easily, too short and it isn’t good for finding bugs in grass, an optimal candidate gets 51% of the vote, so our system increasingly produces candidates who *only* will get that.

I am in 100% agreement about the 51% thing. There is no way that is just coincidence. For a couple of races, sure, but year after year. No way. Now, are you saying its an accidental feature rather of a conspiracy or its an engineered phenomena?